Truth Magazine

By John McCort

The Mormons have deceived many people into believing that archaeological finds in Central and South America have verified the Book of Mormon as being the word of God. To the average Christian the claims of the Mormon “elders” about recent archaeological finds are very difficult to deal with since the average Christian has little or no background to dispute the claims of these self-styled experts. The truth of the matter is that archaeology has produced nothing of any consequence that verifies the Mormon claims.

The Mormons need to listen to their own archaeologists. The few qualified archaeologists that the Mormons have within their ranks violently disagree with the popular Mormon notion that archaeology has verified the Book of Mormon. Dr. Ross T. Christensen, a leading Mormon archaeologist from Brigham Young University, stated,

“The statement that the Book of Mormon has already been proved by archaeology is misleading. The truth of the matter is that we are only now beginning to see even the outlines of the archaeological time-periods which could compare with those of the Book of Mormon. How, then, can the matter have been settled once and for all? That such an idea could exist indicates the ignorance of many of our, people with regard to what is going on in the historical and anthropological sciences” (Dr. Ross T. Christensen, “University Archaeological Society Newsletter”, No. 64, January 30, 1960, p. 3).

Many of these zealous Mormon missionaries have boastfully claimed that many non-Mormon archaeologists are now using the Book of Mormon as an archaeological guide to help them find ancient civilizations in Central and South America. M. Wells Jakeman, another prominent Mormon archaeologist, had this to say about that claim,

“It must be confessed that some members of the ‘Mormon’ or ‘Latter-Day Saint Church’ are prone, in their enthusiasm for the Book of Mormon, to make claims for it that cannot be supported. So far as is known to the writer, no non-Mormon archaeologist at the present time is using the Book of Mormon as a guide in archaeological research. Nor does he know of any non-Mormon archaeologist who. holds that the American Indians are descendants of the Jews, or that Christianity was known in America in the first century of our era. This in itself, of course, does not disprove the Book of Mormon; for not enough is yet known of the actual period of that record in ancient America, or of the origin of the American Indians, for a final judgment at this time, scientifically speaking” (M. Wells Jakeman, “University Archaeological Society Newsletter”, No. 57, March 25, 1959, p. 4).

Many of the archaeological proofs that these overzealous Mormon missionaries present to verify their claims are unreliable. Many colorful highly illustrated books have been published by the Mormons to try to verify their assertions. Again, their own scholars reject the evidence that has thus far been presented,

“. . . however, we must not overlook the fact that some Mormons have popularized equally mistaken ideas, which they have held, about the book and have thus helped retard the development of Book of Mormon archaeology. For example, some popular ‘Mormon’ ‘books show pictures of classic Maya, Inca, and Aztec ruins and attribute them to the Nephites. Scholars are aware that these civilizations postdate Book of Mormon times. Other gross errors include the use of outdated or other wise unreliable source materials and the tendency to make every piece fit neatly into the Book of Mormon picture, whether it is there or not” (University Archaeological Society Newsletter, No. 54, November 19, 1958, p. 2. The statement was made by Dee F. Green, M.A., Latter Day Saints archaeologist, editor of the U.A. A. Newsletter )

Again,

“The publication of magnificent volumes of photographs of the ruins of buildings and cities located in the area of high civilizations in the Americas is another example. These lavishly illustrated books are frequently written and published in an endeavor to prove that complex civilizations existed in the Book of Mormon period. Unfortunately, their photographs for the most part are of cities that were built after the Book of Mormon period” (Papers of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium On The Archaeology Of The Scriptures, Delivered on April l, 1961).

According to their own admission the Mormons have very few men who are qualified. to speak with authority in the field of archaeology or related fields.

“Latter-Day. Saints who have had any formal training in archaeology are exceedingly few. In other words, the interest which they have in this field has been up to the present largely on an amateur rather than professional level. I am convinced that this sort of archaeology in the church will be no more effective in solving the problems which face us than folk medicine would be in protecting the health of the people” (Christensen, “U. A. S. Newsletter,” No. ’64, January 30, 1960, PP. 5-6).

The Mormons, are, by their own admission, alone in their claims and interpretation of archaeology. They have taken the proverbial attitude, “The rest of the world is crazy except me and thee, and sometimes I wonder about thee.” For years the Mormons claimed that the Smithsonian Institute used the Book of Mormon as a guide in archaeological research. The Smithsonian Institute finally published a letter disclaiming any confidence in the Book of Mormon as an archaeological guide. This letter can be obtained by writing a letter to the Institute and requesting a copy.

The Christian public should not be fooled by the confident assertions of over-zealous Mormon missionaries about archaeological finds. Even their own scholars won’t and can’t back them up. The evidence is not there:

Truth Magazine, XX:9, p. 9-10
February 19, 1976

By William V. Beasley 

“Take heed therefore how ye hear. . .” (Luke 8:18). Not only is man responsible before God for what he hears (Mark 4:24), but also for the manner in which he hears. Some people have prejudiced ears that filter out all that they do not wish to hear. At least fifteen times (seven in the Gospels, and eight in Revelation) Jesus used the expression, or a similar one, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. . :”

It has been well said, “It requires great listening as well as great preaching to make a great sermon.” Generally speaking, preachers are better at preaching than the congregation is at hearing. Why? Because preachers have been trained, studied how to preach. We would all be wise to study, train ourselves how to listen (hear).

“Ten Guides To Effective Listening” are given by Ralph G. Nichols in his work “Do We Know How to Listen? Practical Helps in a Modern Age” (The Speech Teacher, X (1961), 118-124). We are grateful’ to Dr. Nichols and to the Speech Communication Association for their permission to quote from this work.

Ten Guides To Effective Listening

1. “Find areas of interest

“All studies point to the advantage in being interested in the topic under discussion. Bad listeners usually declare the subject dry after the first few sentences. Once this decision is made, it serves to rationalize any and all inattention. . . .

“The key to the whole matter of interest in a topic is the word use. Whenever we wish to listen efficiently, we ought to say to ourselves: ‘What’s he saying that I can use? What worthwhile ideas has he? Is he reporting any workable procedures? Anything that I can cash in, or with which I can make myself happier?’ Such questions lead us to screen what we are hearing in a continual effort to sort out the elements of personal value. G. K. Chesterton spoke wisely indeed when he said, ‘There is no such thing as an uninteresting subject; there are only uninterested people.’

There should be no major problem here. All Christians should be interested in, and able to use the truths presented from God’s word. If a lesson is not interesting to us, perhaps we need to consider a revision in our area of interest.

2. “Judge content, not delivery

“Many listeners alibi inattention to a speaker by thinking to themselves: ‘Who could listen to such a character? What an awful voice! Will he ever stop reading from his notes?’

“The good listener reacts differently. He may well look at the speaker and think; ‘This man is inept. Seems: like almost anyone ought to be able to talk better than that.’ But from this initial similarity he moves on to a different conclusion, thinking ‘But wait a minute … I’m not interested in his personality or delivery. I want to. find out what he knows. Does this man know some things that I need to know?’

“Essentially we ‘listen with our own experience.’ Is the conveyor to be held responsible because we are poorly equipped to decode his message? We cannot understand everything we hear, but one sure way to raise the level of our understanding is to assume the responsibility which is inherently ours.”

The last paragraph reminds us of the one who upon saying, “I didn’t get anything out of that sermon,” was told, “Well, perhaps that is because you didn’t bring anything to put it in.”

It is a shame but congregations have been known to seek a new preacher because the old one was “not eloquent in the pulpit.”

3. “Hold your fire . . .

“The aroused person usually becomes preoccupied by trying to do three things simultaneously: calculate what hurt is being done to his own pet ideas; plot an embarrassing question to ask the speaker; enjoy mentally all the discomfiture visualized for the speaker once the devastating reply to him is launched. With these things going on, subsequent passages go unheard.

“We must learn not to get too excited about a speaker’s point until we are certain we thoroughly. understand it. The secret is contained in the principle, that we must always withhold evaluation until comprehension is complete.”

How many times have so “fired from the hip” when we should have “buttoned our lip.” “But let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak. . .” (James 1:19).

“Good listeners focus on central ideas; they tend to recognize the characteristic language in which central ideas are usually stated, and they are able to discriminate between fact and principle, idea and’ example, evidence and argument. Poor listeners are inclined to listen for the facts in every presentation.

“It is a significant fact that only about 25 per cent of persons listening to a formal talk are able to grasp the speaker’s central idea. To develop this skill requires an ability to recognize conventional organizational patterns,. transitional language, and the speaker’s use of recapitulation. Fortunately, all of these items can be readily mastered with, a bit of effort.”

Preacher, you can test this by asking your midweek class what the sermons were about the Sunday before. Be prepared for an ego shattering experience. Will even 25% know the central idea?

5. “Be flexible

“Our research has shown that our 100 worst listeners thought that note-taking and outlining were synonyms. They believed there was but one way to take notes – by making an outline.

“The 100 best listeners had apparently learned early in life that if they wanted to be efficient note-takers they had to have more than one system of taking notes. They equipped themselves with four or five systems, and learned to adjust their system to the organizational pattern, or the absence of one, in each talk they heard. If we want to be good listeners, we must be flexible and adaptable note takers.”

6. “Work at listening

“One of the most striking characteristics of poor listeners is their disinclination to spend any energy in a listening situation. College students, by their own testimony, frequently enter classes all worn out physically; assume postures which only seem to give attention to the speaker; and then proceed to catch up on needed rest or to reflect upon purely personal matters. This faking of attention is one of the worst habits afflicting us as a people.

“Listening is hard work. It is characterized by faster heart action, quicker circulation of the blood, a small rise in bodily temperature. The over relaxed listener is merely appearing to tune in, and then feeling conscience-free to pursue any of a thousand mental tangents.

7. “Resist distractions

“The good listeners tend to adjust quickly to any. kind of abnormal situation; poor listeners tend to tolerate bad conditions and, in some instances, even to create distractions themselves….

“‘A good listener instinctively fights distraction. Sometimes the fight is easily won – by closing a door, shutting off the radio, moving closer to the person talking (emphasis mind, wvb), or asking him to speak louder. If the distractions cannot be met that easily, then it becomes a matter of concentration.”

Babies in services will squirm, fuss and fret, and ill mannered teenagers will write notes and giggle, but we should be able to concentrate on something as important as God’s word. If we cannot perhaps the real babies are not the ones fussing and fretting, and ill manners may not be confined to teenagers.

8. “Exercise your mind

“Poor listeners are inexperienced in hearing difficult, expository material. Good listeners apparently develop an appetite for hearing a variety of presentations difficult enough to challenge their mental capacities . . .”

Even if a sermon is not on your pet interest it is still needed if it is Truth. Once you learn something about the subject you might even learn to enjoy the “meat” of the word.

“For selfish reasons alone one of the best investments we can make is to give each speaker our conscious attention. We ought to establish eye contact and maintain it; to indicate by posture and facial expression that the occasion and the speaker’s efforts are a matter of real concern to us. When we do these things we help the speaker to express himself more clearly, and we in turn profit by better understanding of the improved communication we have helped him to achieve. None of this necessarily implies acceptance of his point of view or favorable action upon his appeals. It is, rather, an expression of interest.”

What is said of college students is all too true of church members. Get plenty of rest Saturday night so you will be rested and ready to work at listening.

9. “Keep your mind open

“Parallel to the blind spots which afflict human beings are certain psychological deaf spots which impair our ability to perceive and understand. These deaf, spots are the dwelling place of our most cherished notions, convictions, and complexes. Often, when a speaker invades one of these areas with a word of phrase, we turn our mind to re-traveling familiar mental pathways crisscrossing our invaded area of sensitivity.

“It is hard to believe in moments of cold detachment that just a word or phrase can cause such emotional eruption. Yet with poor listeners it is frequently the case; and even with very good listeners it is occasionally the case, when such emotional deafness transpires, communicative efficiency drops rapidly to zero.

“Among the word known thus to serve as red flags to some listeners are: mother-in-law, landlord, red neck, sharecropper, sissy, pervert, automation, clerk, income tax, hack…

Effective listeners try to identify and to rationalize the words or phrases, most upsetting emotionally. Often the emotional impact of such words can be decreased through a free and open discussion of them with friends or associates.”

Could this explain why some of our denominational friends say, “All you ever preach on is baptism; baptism, baptism?”

What are some of your “red flag” words? Do we mentally turn off those who mention giving; studying, attendance, drinking, etc.?

10. “Capitalize on thought speed

“Most persons talk at a speed of about 125 words a minute. There is good evidence that if thought were measured in words per minute, most of us could think easily at about four times that rate. It is difficult – almost painful – to try to slow down our thinking speed. Thus we normally have about 400 words of thinking time to spare during every minute a person talks to us.

“What do we do with our excess thinking time whiles someone is speaking? If we are poor listeners, we soon become impatient with the slow progress the speaker seems to be making. So our thoughts turn to something else for a moment, then dart back to the speaker. These brief side excursions of thought continue until our mind tarries too long on some enticing but irrelevant subject. Then, when our thoughts return to the person talking, we find he’s far ahead of us. Now it’s harder to follow him and increasingly easy to take off on side excursions. Finally we give up; the person is still talking, but our mind is in another world.

“The good listener used his thought speed to advantage; he constantly applies his spare thinking time to what is being said. It is not difficult once one has a definite pattern of thought to follow. To develop such a pattern we should:

“l. Try to anticipate what a person is going to talk about. On the basis of what he’s already said, ask yourself, “What’s he trying to get at? What point is he going to make?”

“2. Mentally summarize what the person has been saying. What point has he made already, if any?

“3. Weigh the speaker’s evidence by mentally questioning it. As he presents facts, illustrative stories and statistics, continually ask yourself: ‘Are they accurate? Do they come from an unprejudiced source? Am I getting the full picture, or is he telling me only what will prove his point?”

“4. Listen between the lines. The speaker doesn’t always put everything that’s important into words. The changing tones and volume of his voice may have a meaning. So may his facial expressions, the gestures he makes with his hands, the movements of his body.

“Not capitalizing on thought speed is our greatest single handicap. The differential between thought speed and speech speed breeds false feelings of security and mental tangents. Yet, through listening training, this same differential can be readily converted into our greatest single asset.”

“Take heed how you hear. . .” (Luke 8:18). “He that hath an ear to hear let him hear” (Matt. 11:15; etc.).

Truth Magazine XX:8, p. 7-9
February 19, 1976

By Keith Clayton

Vermont is a very dark area of the world in terms of the gospel and the truth about the church being very widely known. Vermont is largely a rural area. There are only approximately 500,000 people ,in the entire state. Until the 1960 census, cows out-numbered people and it was not until the 1970 census that people finally surpassed chickens in total population. Unfortunately, the average non-Christian has heard about as much about the church as the chickens and cows. Let me explain. Maybe it is my youth in Christ that causes me to expect too much too soon. I apologize if this article sounds like a testimonial or if it appears that I think these problems are unique to Vermont. I am just trying to portray, as accurately as I can, the state of the Lord’s church in Vermont, and a little bit of what the work is like here.

Of the seven or eight congregations I know about in this tiny state, there is only one sound congregation that I know of. That one happens to be the one I worship with regularly, Milton. The fact that this faithful congregation of the Lord’s children has remained strong in the face of the issues is incredible in itself. Brothers Gene Dumas and Gordon Gaynon have had a great deal to do with it. We have no “located” preacher, so these two men have done a commendable work here for the Lord. Unlike some other congregations in the state, we do not take contributions from other congregations. We are a small and struggling congregation financially. We are in the process of buying some land and building a structure to worship in. We are now meeting in the school at an exorbitant rental fee. Our treasury registers nearly zero for a sum total, except for the land that we now hold full title to. Back to the cows and chickens for a minute. Such ignorance is not the situation in Milton. The people of the community that will listen are being reached slowly but surely. We only wish there were made available to us a full time personal worker to expedite the work.

The rest of Vermont is quite a different story. The erring brethren from the other congregations may as well have been teaching the livestock of Vermont’s farms for the amount of truth they have been teaching in regards to the churches’ responsibilities. I have talked with some new converts in these congregations. Here is a very partial list of some of the things these babes in Christ have been taught that are good, wholesome, and necessary (scriptural) for the church to participate in: (1) Potluck suppers in the church building. (2) The Herald of Truth is a part of the gospel itself. (3) If a certain congregation of the Lord’s people do not support human institutions with the Lord’s money, the members of that congregation are “anti-Christs.” (4) Smoking is not a sin. (5) Television is a sin. In talking with one of these erring brothers, he said he thought the problem went much deeper than the issues, and I agreed with him. The problem, I told him, was a general decline in respect for the authority of God’s word and a lack of knowledge of it by a great number of people. He would not agree, but he would not say what he thought the problem was either. I think you can gather from some of the attitudes and teaching that it is no wonder the cows and chickens are in the running as far as a genuine knowledge of God’s word. It is rather hard at times to tell the liberal churches in Vermont, and elsewhere, from a social club or worldly denomination. It would not be quite so bad if some of these imported “Herald of Truthers” would stay where they belong. (Wherever that is!) For example, we have had, in the past, permission to use the baptistry of a near-by congregation. A young lady wanted to obey the gospel one evening, so we went to this congregation’s building. Unfortunately, they were having a gospel meeting and a preacher from Arab, Alabama was there. This guest preacher and a single member, who knows nothing about the issues, but knows that “anti’s” are “antiChrists,” tried to block this young lady from being baptized into Christ. After they had created a scene, the men of the two congregations got together to hash it out. And “hash” it was. The men of Milton listened, without interrupting, to a 45 minute monologue from the Arab, Alabama visitor that sounded like something out of a book entitled, “How to Persuade People Without Telling the Truth” (fictional title, mine). In the final analysis it came down to either we accepted the unscriptural practices of the church supporting human institutions or stay out of the building and especially the baptistry. Suffice it to say the men of Milton offered to study the issues out of God’s word with them, of course, as usual that was out of the question. (They could not do that without their debaters present.)

Back to the work in Milton. The Lord has blessed the efforts of the saints in Milton many times. Evangelists such as Jay Guyer, Ralph Smart, Tom Moody, and Kent Persall have been a great help to the brethren in Milton. It was with the help of these dedicated people that the church in Milton has grown. Just a short time ago, the church in Milton consisted of Brother Gene Dumas and his wife around their kitchen table. Today the congregation’s number is up to around 35 souls. By the way, that is our attendance figure Wednesday and Lord’s day, if we do not have any visitors. We just finished a gospel meeting July 28th. Brothers Kent Persall and Tom Moody from Alabama did an excellent job in working with us. We have been averaging two or three baptisms per meeting. In some cases the meeting only played a minor part in the conversions, but none the less contributed. In closing, if there are preachers (mainly personal workers) looking for a hard but rewarding work, and you can bring support with you, come to Milton, Vermont. You do not need passports to get to this mission field.

Truth Magazine, XX:8, p. 5-6
February 12, 1976

By Cecil Willis

The subject of the Law and the Gospel encompasses a broad field of study. For the past several weeks we have studied categorical statements of the New Testament that the Old Covenant was taken away in the body of Christ. With the wealth of material in the New Testament on this subject, and the vast multitudes who misunderstand it, I deem it wise that we continue our study of this important theme for a few weeks yet. This week we want to be very specific in our study. We want to study a fundamental error of most Sabbath-keeping religious groups. When we study passages showing that the Law of Moses was done away by the death of Christ, this is enough to persuade most people. But some religious groups have peculiar ideas about the Law, and therefore they construe these New Testament teachings to coincide with their pre-conceived religious views. Therefore it is necessary that we devote some time to these misconceptions of truth.

What Is Meant By “Moral” and “Ceremonial” Laws

First; we need to understand the teaching of most Sabbath-keeping denominational bodies. They teach that the Old Testament Law actually consisted of two laws. Sometimes these are classified as three laws, namely: moral, ceremonial, and civil. But ordinarily they refer to the “double-law” of the Old Testament. They mean by this that this law consists of the moral and ceremonial law. It is rather odd how people can coin terms, and then as freely use them as though the Bible were filled with such expressions. For example, the Modernist dissects the Bible in such a way that he very commonly speaks of the “P” or “J” document, and many other such documents even though there is no hint of such documents existing from the Scriptures. Or they quote as casually from “Second Isaiah” (another Modernistic dissection of God’s Word) as though they were personally acquainted with him. Sabbitarians make the same mistake by persistently referring to the “moral” and “ceremonial” laws; as though such a distinction occurred on every page of the Scriptures.

A deeper explanation of this error is in order, before we begin studying a refutation of this basic error. The “moral” law is synonymous with God’s law. It is said that God’s law is the Ten Commandments, the Decalogue. It consists of the Ten Laws that God delivered to Moses, and that God wrote with His own finger. According to this view the moral law, or the Ten Commandments was never destroyed, but is yet binding upon us today. Since the law to keep the Sabbath was a part of the moral law, and it is perpetuated upon this dispensation, some denominationalists meet on the Sabbath (Saturday) to worship, and say that we are doing wrong when we meet on the First Day of the week. But’ what about all the Scriptures we. have previously studied that show that the Law of Moses was done away? This is precisely where the significance of their error is seen.

The ceremonial law is the Law of Moses. It consists of all the laws given in the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, except the Ten Commandment Law. Remember, the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20; Dent. 5) are, for these people, a part of the moral law, and were never done away. They say the New Testament scriptures which teach that the Law was done away, apply exclusively to the ceremonial law.. So they profess to believe what the New Testament says about the law (which for them means nothing more than the ceremonial law). So for the Sabbath-keepers that might have been studying with us for the past several weeks, our studies have presented no problems. For each time the Word said the Law was done away, they mentally say, “Yes, but that only refers to the ceremonial law. The Law of God, the Ten Commandment Law, is yet binding upon all men.” We want to study what the Bible says concerning such a distinction. In advance we might say that not only does the Bible fail to make such a distinction between the moral and ceremonial laws, but it contradicts the-making of such a man-made distinction.

We are told that each time the words “the Law of Moses” occur, it means the ceremonial law, and that each time “the Law of God” occurs, it refers to the moral law. But the Bible makes no such distinction. In fact, in several instances in the Scriptures these two terms are used interchangeably. But before we study these instances, let us observe one quotation from an outstanding Sabbatarian. In speaking of this “double law,” he says, “No question, therefore, more vital to the interest of Sabbath-keepers can be proposed” (Synopsis of Present Truth, p. 258). He says this is the most important issue for Sabbath-keeping people, and I concur in this statement, for if this distinction will not stand the test of Bible investigation, neither will their entire religious system. For remove this premise, and the entire foundation for Sabbath (Saturday) day religion is destroyed.

The Terms Are Not Used Interchangeably

So we now want to investigate this all-important premise. First of all, let us study a passage in which the so-called distinctive terms are supposedly used interchangeably. The Law of Moses or the ceremonial law, is said to have been given by God, and the Law of God is said to have been given by Moses. This would once for all destroy such a fundamental premise as this one of the Sabbath religion. At the time of the return of the Israelites from Babylonian captivity, a copy of the Law was discovered, and Neh. 8, tells of the public reading of the Law. The distinctive Sabbatarian terms are used interchangeably. Verse 1 says, “And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel.” Verse 2 says, “And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation.” Verse 3 says, “And the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.” We read about those that helped in the understanding of “the law” in verse 7, and verse 8 says, “So they read in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.” Verse 14 reads, And they found written in the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month.” Verse 18 reads, “Also day by day, from the first day into the last day, he read in the book of the law of God.”

Now let us summarize the names by which the Old Covenant is referred to in this chapter. (1) It is called the book of the law of Moses (v. 1); the law, (v. 2); the book of the law (v. 3); the law, (v. 7; the law of God (v. 8); the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses (v. 14); the book of the law of God (v. 18). So the one Law is called both the Law of God, and the Law of Moses. It is the Law of God as given by Moses, and it is he Law of Moses as given by God. No Sabbatarian lives that can harmonize this passage with their so-called “double-law” theory. Remember they say the Law of God refers only to the Ten Commandments, and the Law of Moses refers to the “ceremonial” portions of the old Testament. But in Neh. 8, the Law of God and the Law of Moses are one and the same Law.

The Law Has Been Done Away

The New Testament passages we recently have been studying that state that the Law of Moses was done away, do so by referring to the Law of Moses merely as the Law. For example, in Eph. 2:15, Paul said the Law of commandments was done away in the cross of Christ. In this, he referred to the Old Testament Law. Such is the usage of the word “law” in the book of Romans. But Paul was not using the word “law” to designate either the Law of Moses, nor the Law of God in the nomenclature of denominationalism. He simply is using t to refer to the whole of the Old Covenant.

What does he say about the Old Covenant? We studied last week on the subject of “Spiritual Adultery” as discussed by Paul in Romans 7. The adulterous union was that of trying to be married to the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ at the same time. So he concluded his remarks by saying, “But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter” (Rom. 7:6). So Paul said that we are no longer under the Law. Notice the usage of the simple expression “the law” in describing our release from it. What is meant by “the law”? Whatever it refers to, it was done away. Not only do we want to learn from this chapter that the law was done away, but we also want to see that “the law” refers to the Ten Commandments.

Paul said, “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: but sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin is dead” (Rom. 7:7, 8). Paul said that sin was defined by the Law. Later we will study the purpose of the Law, and will learn that one of its purposes was to define adequately the limits of right and wrong. Now the Law, said Paul, states that one is not to covet. Remember it is the Law from which we have been discharged. What is the Law that says one is not to covet? Turn back to the Old Testament and you will find that “Thou shalt not covet” is the tenth commandment in the Ten Commandment Law. So here Paul said that the Ten Commandment Law is called “the law.” Sabbatarians would say that Paul must have used the term “law of God” in order to speak properly of the Ten Commandments. But friend, whose prerogative is it to coin the terms of Scripture? Is it some man’s who has a pet doctrine to defend? Paul knew what he was talking about. He was speaking of the Ten Commandment Law, and he said, from it we have been discharged. There is not a Sabbatarian living that can answer this argument. It is no argument devised by me nor any other man, but it is an argument devised by inspiration by the Apostle Paul. It destroys the only foundation of Sabbatarianism. Paul, in no uncertain terms, said, ‘I am talking about the Ten Commandment Law, and we are now dead to it, or have been discharged from it.’

Conclusion

There is one other misunderstanding that needs to be clarified. Sometimes the people who say the Law of Moses is taken away are called “antinomians,” a term which the people who use it, probably do not understand. It simply means that we are people who are against law, which is a false accusation. We are not against law, but we believe what the Law of Christ says about the Law of Moses being taken out of the way, and nailed to our Savior’s cross. We believe in strict adherence to the Law of Christ, so to apply the term “antinomian” to one who believes thus, is a misnomer. Believing that we are bound by, and will be judged by the Law of Christ, we strive to the extent of our ability to live upright in the sight of God, humbly asking God’s forgiveness when we fall. We exhort people to study and obey the Law of Christ. Believe on Him as the Son of God, repent of your sins, confess your faith in Him, and obey His command to be baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (This topic will be further discussed in our next article.)

Truth Magazine, XX:8, p. 3-5
February 19, 1976